This is the talk page for discussing the page, Number ruins.
Please try to
- I think it's okay having them all organized under 1 article. Splitting them up would make really small articles for each. I don't see much problem in having to link to a particular section (for different ruins) in other articles. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 02:31, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Like Ultimate say, let's treat them as minor Deck Recipe in some certain Characters, like Rally Dawson or Mr. Armstrong. They gotta gain up until they're too "fat" or "overweight" to stay within the article. --iFredCat 02:37, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
- I've contemplated suggesting this before. I agree with Cheesedude. I don't think length is as big a factor as it's made out to be and think independent objects are generally deserving of their own articles, same way a card or episode would typically gets its own article even if for some reason there was very little content to include on their page. Two to three paragraphs, plus an intro and images isn't too short anyway. It also gives us the ability to add more specific categories, properties and infoboxes, if necessary.
- I'm a bit iffy about section linking between articles, as it sends to reader to somewhere with no intro paragraph and the content can require the rest of the page for context. e.g. if someone clicks a link to the mountain palace, they'd expect to be told what it is, but are told how it compares to the other ruins and what its "Number" and "Number" guardian are. That's fine for something that's part of the Number ruins page, but not for an independent description. -- Deltaneos (talk) 03:21, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
As no ruins were shown for Number 64, shouldn't we at least say that there were no ruins shown instead of not making any mention of it at all? A Shining Star appeared!! (Make a Wish) 19:45, June 22, 2013 (UTC)